From: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>,
Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com>,
Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@intel.com>,
Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@intel.com>
Subject: automatic recipe upgrades - making them better and sweeter
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:50:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499138bd-32cc-1487-e36e-fc4e5aceb4b2@linux.intel.com> (raw)
Hello,
I've been asked by RP to look into making automatic package upgrades
work better, so here's what I'd like to improve:
1) when using 'devtool upgrade', remove the need to specify version and
source revision on the command line, if we want to upgrade to the latest
release. There is now distrodata/checkpkg code in place to determine
both, so 'devtool upgrade <recipe>' could simply default to that.
2) help with LICENSE checksum changes a bit more; both devtool and AUH
have some code for this, so I want to review what they do, and
consolidate it in a single place. Maintainers should be able to see a
diff of what the changes are.
3) 'devtool finish' currently does not handle the recipe upgrade
situation well: the new recipe and patches are placed side by side with
the current recipe. The old stuff should be removed, and a tentative
commit should be created. So maybe add a 'devtool finish-upgrade'.
4) AUH should be stripped to its core business: sending useful emails to
maintainers, and leave the rest to devtool. If 'devtool upgrade'
succeeded, then corresponding patches should be attached, otherwise (if
patch rebase failed, or a fetch issue), at least it could tell what
happened and suggest a devtool upgrade command to get started. Any
duplicate functionality for upgrading (stuff that is also in devtool)
should be removed.
Anything I missed? Comments?
Thanks,
Alex
next reply other threads:[~2017-11-06 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-06 11:50 Alexander Kanavin [this message]
2017-11-06 20:04 ` automatic recipe upgrades - making them better and sweeter Paul Eggleton
2017-11-07 15:20 ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-11-07 20:17 ` Paul Eggleton
2017-11-08 13:09 ` Alexander Kanavin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=499138bd-32cc-1487-e36e-fc4e5aceb4b2@linux.intel.com \
--to=alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@intel.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=paul.eggleton@intel.com \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ross.burton@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox